1. A lot of people call Fundamentalism anti-intellectual, or say that a lot of Fundamentalists have been anti-intellectual. (If you want to know more about this, talk to Dr. Naugle or any philosophy major who's mastered his classes.) The funny things about this is that they also suggest that Fundamentalism is a basically Modernist development and is marked by rationalism. First of all, this is strange and some critics of Fundamentalism are in desparate need of making distinctions as to how one can be anti-intellectual and rationalistic at the same time.

2. (For more on dualism, see the same philosophy peoples mentioned above.) Head Snipe suggests that, as the particular rationalism is given a good description by Robert Webber, who made the distinction mentioned above: Fundamentalism is anti-intellectual as regards German higher criticism and liberalism and all that wacko nonsense, secularism, etc. Fundamentalism is rationalistic in its tendency to go along with "Scottish Common Sense Realism" and to reduce Scripture and truth to mere (understandable) propositional truth (an extremely bad thing to do! The truth of Scripture goes way beyond mere sentences (it's a narrative, a story; it has to be applied in daily life; it has to be loved and not just affirmed; etc.); furthermore, many sentences (try John 1:1-14 cannot be comprehended by the human mind, though human poetry may get closer).

Anyways, to get to the point, since according to Webber Fundamentalism is rationalistic as regards propositional truth and anti-intellectual as regards liberalism and secularism, perhaps dualism is a better term to describe its intellectual stance. There is Christian propositional truth (Scripture) and there is rationalism Christians should avoid (German higher criticism and secularism).

(By the way, dualism is bad, too!)

3. The central core of Fundamentalism is inerrancy of Scripture. The Head Snipe doesn't know how many people have actually defined this as applying to English translations and to Scripture taken out of context, Scripture taken so as to go against the author's intent, EG, what Paul was actually saying to the Christians in Thessalonica, etc., etc. However, a lot of people criticize fundamentalism for not using these rules of hermeneutics, which good Fundamentalists and inerrantists do today: Scripture is inerrant, but that means it's right because it means what it says! Which means it's inerrant according to the author's intent!

4. Inerrancy does not lead to the reduction of truth in general and Scripture in particular to merely propositional truth. The word inerrant means without error. A lot of people say "infallible" and shy away from "inerrant" or say "trustworthy" and shy away from both "infallible" and "inerrant." Maybe they're only trying to avoid the abuses of inerrance (such as the ones mentioned above); if so, they wouldn't do bad to admit agreeing with the dictionary use of a word that means the Bible has no errors in it.

4. As inerrancy does not lead to the reduction of truth and Scripture to mere proposition, there is no need to deny inerrancy to get beyond merely propositional truth. For instance, both theologian Karl Barth and philosopher Jean-Luc Marion say that Scripture's words point us to the living Jesus Christ. While Barth is explicit that the words of Scripture are not the word of God, the Head Snipe is pretty sure that Marion never denied it, though it's probable he thought so. In any case, both of them don't much emphasize Scripture being the inerrant word of God; what they emphasize is that when reading Scripture you encounter the Word of God (Jesus Christ). Now someone tell me: does Scripture have to be not inerrant for someone to encounter Jesus Christ while reading it?

5. ("Hermeneutics" is the science or art of Scriptural interpretation.) When non-fundamentalists talk about good hermeneutical principles (author's intent, priority of the original language, the need to put the whole Bible in context of Jesus Christ [the Christological principle]), they probably mean something other than what Dr. Bell means. When Dr. Bell says that learning the Greek and Hebrew and looking closely at the context to find out what David's and Moses' and Paul's actual intent was, he means that's how to find the meaning of Scripture. When non-fundamentalists say that you have to use these hermeneutical principles, they mean that you can't find the actual meaning. Dr. Bell's hermeneutics finds the meaning of Scripture. A moderate's hermeneutics obscures the meaning of Scripture.

A case in point is Dr. Jim Denisson. Now, it's entirely possible that he means these things like Dr. Bell does when he talks about hermeneutical principles. But as a major if not the foremost Texas critic of the Southern Baptist Convention's continued shift toward Fundamentalism, he probably means something else. Likely, he's talking like this because he knows that Dr. Bell and his students are around, and a few of us are paying close attention to chapel. For instance, not too long ago in a sermon on Jeremiah he said that you have to find the author's intent and then you have to find how it applies to your life. These are precisely the terms Dr. Bell uses. But what does Denisson mean by it?

Denisson is a confusing sort of guy. But we do know for sure what some people mean by it. These people's hermeneutics are such that the sentences in Scripture are not always both correct and relevant to us today. In practice, this means that the Christological principle (make all Scripture harmonious with the principles taught by Jesus Christ) overrules pretty obvious statements made by dudes like the Apostle Paul. Case in point (very applicable in Texas): female pastors. It's pretty darn close to a sentence like this: "Women can't be pastors." But because this is in supposed conflict with the principles of Christ, especially that of Love, Love overrules Paul's command, and women can be pastors. Because Scripture is not inerrant and because the Christological principle overrules the clear statement of Scripture (even the author's intent!), women can still be pastors. See how hermeneutics for these guys does the opposite of what Dr. Bell said it does (reveal Scripture) by making Scripture's statements no longer relevant?

Now, Denisson may or may not think much like some of this stuff, but it's a distinct possibility. He is an important person in the BGCT, which is the convention in which a lot of these "moderates" reside. As the Head Snipe recalls, a bit of opposition came out of the BGCT when the SBC added to their Baptist Faith and Message a statement that women can't be pastors. Denisson has been known to disagree with the SBC and say that the Christological principle is being ignored.

6. A very good person who nevertheless obviously thinks differently than I do, recently told me (the Head Snipe) that there is no text without an interpretation. There is no inerrant Scripture without a little bit of human interpretation. I cannot at the moment see any reason why you can't have a single inerrant meaning with various interpretations on top of it; this is not precisely what he was saying, but this is why I'm ok with it. He told me that tradition is the interpretation. This seems to be what's called a "hermeneutical circle." The meaning of the Bible determines orthodox Christian tradition, which in turn interprets the Bible.

At the moment I don't have any particular problem with that. But I'm not sure that some of the people (I have no reason for suspecting the certain person of whom I am presently speaking) don't think quite this way even though they may say stuff like this. For example, look at the women pastors thing. You can't say that orthodox Christian tradition interprets Scripture without bringing in the Anglicans, Catholics, Greek and Russian Orthodox, and a few extra Protestant denominations. In the history of the church, how often have female pastors been considered acceptable? Very rarely; probably not for the first fifteen hundred years or maybe more like eighteen hundred. If orthodox tradition interprets Scripture then the decision to not allow female pastors should be a no-brainer.

What I'm doing is pulling together various different non-Fundamentalists here. One person said that thing about tradition and the Bible being a hermeneutical circle. It's other people that I know for sure support the option of female pastors. But if (only if) the two things come together in one person's viewpoint, there will be a certain suspicious inconsistency. One will wonder if the "hermeneutical circle" of Scripture and orthodox tradition is referenced only when convenient.

ALL THIS TO SAY ... I see no reason not to affirm inerrancy, nor "fundamentalism" if it's defined by "the fundamentals" and not by the abuses of inerrancy.

Like I said, people, these are only my best speculations at the time. If you trust me, I'd recommend trusting Dr. Bell and Bernard Ramm. But I don't think Dennison or the people who certainly are "centrists," "moderates," "neo-Orthodox," or whatever other words may properly apply, are out to get you. I'm sure just as many of them are going to be our dear friends in Heaven as will the Fundamentalists. At present, though, I tend to think that they are confused.